A woman in South Africa might use thousands of sanitary pads and pantyliners over her lifetime, yet new research has warned that the products could expose her to hormone-disrupting chemicals.
The groundbreaking research by the University of the Free State (UFS), published last week in Science of the Total Environment, revealed that pads and pantyliners sold on the local market contained endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) such as phthalates, bisphenols and parabens — even when marketed as “free from harmful chemicals”.
Its findings have triggered a national conversation about safety, regulation and consumer rights, prompting the National Consumer Commission (NCC) to launch an investigation into leading manufacturers.
“A healthy woman menstruates about 450 times in her lifetime, on average,” the head of the UFS chemistry department Deon Visser said. “Over five to seven days each month, depending on the flow, she may use five to seven pads a day. You’re talking about a hell of a lot of pads here per woman.”
The authors analysed 16 brands of pads and eight types of pantyliners available at popular retailers, including products branded as “organic” or “plant-based”. Every product tested contained at least two EDCs — substances linked to reproductive toxicity, hormonal imbalance, fertility issues, endometriosis and certain cancers.
While the chemicals were not intentionally added, they could migrate into products during manufacturing from plastics, adhesives, packaging materials or even contaminated water, the researchers said. Pads were hot-pressed during production, which could facilitate the transfer of trace chemicals to the layers that came into direct contact with skin.
The NCC has since launched an investigation into several suppliers whose products were analysed, including Kimberly-Clark (Kotex), Procter & Gamble (Always), Johnson & Johnson (Stayfree), Essity (Libresse), Lil-Lets, Anna Organics, Comfitex, Flo and My Time. The inquiry seeks to assess compliance with the Consumer Protection Act, which requires products to be reasonably suitable for their intended purpose, durable and free from defects.
Suppliers have been asked to submit test results and the commission will determine whether product recalls are warranted. Acting commissioner Hardin Ratshisusu called the matter a priority, saying the findings “raise serious concerns affecting women and girls”.
The study’s authors said that while the levels detected in a single product might appear small, the concern lay in repeated exposure over time. Menstrual products came into contact with mucosal tissue, which absorbed chemicals more quickly and directly than normal skin.
The results, the authors said, underscored the urgent need for rigorous safety assessments and the establishment of regulatory standards to ensure that menstrual products “are both effective and free from unnecessary chemical risks”.
‘Chemical cocktail’
While the analysed sanitary pads and pantyliners fall within international limits, “we don’t have limits in South Africa and that’s what the study kind of called for,” Visser said, adding: “We’ve already engaged with the NCC and the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) on Monday.
“We had a fantastic meeting and we will definitely continue this meeting because the SABS have been looking at chemical testing in sanitary wear for two years now. There’s an ISO standard that’s being developed, so they are busy with it but now we can also inform the process.
“This is the concern: even if something has low levels of certain chemicals in them, what is the effect of long-term exposure? What is the effect of a cocktail of these chemicals that we’re getting from various products, including mascara, fragrances, shampoos and conditioners? They’re [ECDs] in many of these products so what is the cocktail of these exposures?
“And do we regulate it by forcing manufacturers to put it on the back of the product? I think consumers should know what they are using and then, of course, it’s a sensitive area where sanitary products are used and it absorbs much better than the rest of the skin, so what are those effects?”
He cited the example of Tupperware, which in 2010, started manufacturing products without BPA. “They are BPA-free through public pressure, I believe. If a large company can do that, the question is why shouldn’t we consider doing that as well?”
In the “fallout” that erupted since the publication of their study, Visser and his team bought tampons to chemically analyse. “Studies show that they, in some cases, even contain heavy metals, so that needs to be investigated and tested as well before the ISO standards are even considered,” he said.
“If I had a choice, I wouldn’t use a tampon just because the exposure area is larger and because we don’t know what’s in there. It’s directly in contact with the mucosal membranes; anything that is on the outer area there and able to move, will move.”
They, too, were analysing the chemical profile of nappies, he said. “Nappies are made exactly the same way as pads. They are not hot pressed as hard, so we think that the hot pressing — and we’re not sure of this — but the hot pressing does release some of these chemicals.
“I don’t think nappies are pressed as much but they contain the same plastics, the same top layers, the same of all these things.”
He added that the environmental impact of pads and pantyliners was another concern. Disposed of after single use, they could take 500 to 800 years to decompose, leaching the same chemicals into the environment.
Visser said he saw the potential for positive change. “This is the first study of its kind in South Africa. We want to work with manufacturers, government bodies and activist groups instead of shouting at each other. That, to me, could be a fantastic outcome from all of this.”
Manufacturers respond
Edana, the international association representing nonwoven and absorbent hygiene product manufacturers, said the substances detected in the study were not intentionally added and appeared at extremely low levels, consistent with background environmental exposure.
It emphasised that detection alone did not automatically indicate a safety risk, particularly when testing did not reflect real-world exposure. Harsh extraction methods used in some studies might dissolve substances that would not normally migrate to skin or mucosa.
Edana highlighted its voluntary stewardship programme, which monitored trace chemicals, minimised residual substances and followed global guidance standards such as Oeko-Tex.
Through the programme, member companies conducted exposure-based risk assessments, engaged with regulators and aimed to maintain transparency, safety and consumer trust worldwide. The association also stressed the importance of harmonised testing that reflected how products were used.
In a statement, Lil-Lets said: “We note the announcement by the National Consumer Commission (NCC) regarding its investigation into products referenced in the recent University of the Free State study, titled, ‘The Presence of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals in Sanitary Pads: A Study Done in South Africa’ (2026). We welcome the Commission’s review and will cooperate fully with their investigation.
“The quality and safety of our products is, and will always remain, our highest priority. We are deeply committed to protecting and supporting our consumers, employees, communities and the environment in which we operate.
“Our products are manufactured in accordance with stringent international quality and safety standards applicable to the feminine hygiene category. Our Home and Personal Care manufacturing facility is certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and ISO 45001 and to the British Retail Consortium Global Standard for Consumer Products, Personal Care & Household.
“In addition, our tampon products are certified to the Oeko-Tex Standard 100, confirming that they have been tested for harmful substances.
“We have reviewed the published report by the University of the Free State. We welcome independent scientific research and recognise the importance of continued investigation into trace chemicals in everyday products.
“Importantly, the study notes that the trace chemical levels detected were within existing regulatory limits. Based on current scientific evidence and applicable regulatory standards, consumers can continue to use Lil-Lets products with confidence. Interpretation of such findings must consider established global safety standards, recognised testing methodologies and real-world exposure conditions.
“The term ‘trace’ refers to extremely small amounts, often measured in parts per million or billion, that can be present in many everyday materials due to environmental background exposure across global supply chains.
“Lil-Lets believes that constructive engagement is the most responsible path forward. We intend to engage directly with the authors of the study to better understand the scope, study design and analytical methodologies used and to explore how future research can further advance knowledge in this area. We are particularly supportive of research that evaluates real-world exposure scenarios, including the migration of trace substances under normal use conditions.
“Trace levels of certain chemicals can be present in many everyday products due to environmental background exposure across global supply chains. These substances are not intentionally added to our products.
“Nonetheless, we recognise that ongoing scientific scrutiny is important, and we remain committed to continuous improvement. We work closely with our raw material suppliers to better understand potential sources of trace substances and to reduce them wherever feasible.
“Our supplier partnerships include strict material specifications, routine testing protocols and compliance verification processes aligned with international best practice.
“As a member of Edana, the global association representing the nonwovens and absorbent hygiene industry, Lil-Lets participates in industry stewardship initiatives that use exposure-based risk assessments and testing methodologies designed to reflect real-world use conditions.
“We routinely review our testing frameworks in line with evolving scientific knowledge and regulatory guidance to ensure continued alignment with global best practice. We support efforts to continually strengthen scientific understanding and, where appropriate, standards frameworks.
“Our focus remains clear: transparency, collaboration and science-led decision-making. We look forward to engaging constructively with researchers, industry bodies and regulators to ensure that menstrual products remain safe, trusted and backed by robust scientific evidence.
“As a brand dedicated to supporting women, we recognise the importance of trust in intimate care products and remain committed to earning that trust every day.”
Manufacturers and industry groups argue that endocrine-disrupting chemicals in menstrual products are present at extremely low levels and do not compromise safety
